The parties recently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Costco argued that it did not violate the Act because the “extra” six digits permissibly revealed only the type of card Paci used for her purchases and not any personal information. Those first six digits are identical on all cards, Costco stated. Costco also argued that the statute only applies to receipts provided to customers “at the point of sale or transaction.” Here, in contrast, Paci received the receipt in an area separate and apart from the cash registers. Costco finally argued that Paci lacks Article III standing to maintain her class action because the receipt at issue has been secured in a file cabinet since she received it, and she has never established how the receipt could have been used to facilitate identity theft.
In her summary judgment motion, Paci argued that discovery “has confirmed that the receipt is printed within a Costco store and that the machine that prints the subject receipt is part of Costco’s point of sale system,” thus entitling Paci to judgment as a matter of law. Paci also argued that she satisfies Article III standing requirements. According to Paci, “[t]he plain language of the statute . . . indicates that the violation, the concrete harm, is completed once the electronically printed receipt is ‘provided to the cardholder at the point of sale or transaction.’” She concludes that an invasion of a legally protected interest is sufficient to satisfy Article III. Paci also briefly argues that expending time to protect her receipt instead of simply throwing out her receipt could also constitute concrete injuries.
The motions are expected to be fully briefed by the beginning of January. We will continue to monitor the case and report on the Court’s ultimate decision.